Doesn't scream into DS microphones.
Gender: Male
Rank: Decisive Witness
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 281
Quote:
To start I'll say I've lost confidence in your ability to debate, I realised why your arguments have no conviction to them, because they don't explain anything. You ain't trying to argue "Who really forged the bloody Ace" you don't have any idea or theory,
If you'll recall, neither of us were debating that in the first place. This debate started over whether or not Phoenix could have called Trucy from the BBC in the first place, which was one of the key points of the main argument overall: "Who really forged the ace?" I thought that it was unlikely that Phoenix could have, considering how many factors would have to go into that situation for that to happen(e.g, whether he could describe the cards quickly to her and how quickly the police would have gotten there). You disagreed, and that led to the "nitpicky" debate we have now.
If you're going to accuse me of having no argument that relates to the original topic, please keep in mind what we were arguing about in the first place.
Quote:
where it's difficult to get an absolute victor and when that fails you ignore common sense and canon to put forward your conjecture.
Before I respond to this, let me say I mean no offense to you as a person, but this will inevitably come with some form of offensive response, so please don't take it as such.
For you to say this is, first off, not only hypocritical, but also contrary to the very Ace Attorney world in the first place. Of course there will be no absolute victor. There rarely is in debate, and if you think you're going to come up with an absolute victor every time you disagree on something, you are going to be very sorry. Take a look at the presidential debates. None of them(with the possible exception of the first this year) had a clear cut winner. Debate's done for the fun of it, not to settle some massive issue(unless you're running for political office, in which case the point appears to be to drag your opponent into the mud as much as possible. If you're not having fun, then why, I must ask, are you doing this in the first place?
Secondly, you claim I am ignoring common sense. Yet we are arguing in a world where people's backgrounds and not checked before trials, where the judge is an imbecile, where people can impersonate attorney's with cardboard badges, where "a monkey head has fallen in the middle of the road and no one can walk around it" is a legitimate explanation, and where people can sign letters of transferral without being a lawyer currently. There is very little "common sense" in the AA world.
As for ignoring canon, the only "canon" you have referenced so far is the shaky testimony of a fake Russian waitress turned card shark. That's incredibly loose grounds for basing any theory.
Quote:
I looked at your first point last night before I went to sleep and I lost sleep over the stupidity of it and how infuriating it was so I might not argue further after this.
First off, if you are going to accuse me of being insulting, make sure you do not partake in the same thing yourself, good sir.
Secondly, as mentioned before, this is conjectural debate. It's for fun. It's also on an Ace Attorney forum. If you are legitimately at the point where you are losing sleep over this...I question whether or not it would be good for you to be debating at all. It's the internet. Don't take things so seriously.
Now, on to your responses...
Quote:
My assumption is based by the game telling us so and no one contradicting it or objecting to it. Ignored as I barely bring the BBC owner into this at all. Drop your BBC assumptions.
The game also "told" you that Phoenix forged the bloody ace, and no one in the game objected to it either. By that very standard, you basically admit your entire position is wrong.
Quote:
So you are suggesting Zak would allow collateral damage in his attempt to get revenge on Phoenix.....by getting revenge specifically on Phoenix by letting him lose his badge? I was always under the impression Zak didn't know about the diary page but your argument doesn't indicate Zak's willingness to step on other people to hurt Phoenix.
Replay/watch the flashback of 4-4, where Zak meets Phoenix in the BBC. I'd quote it but I have to go fairly soon so I'll keep this short and sweet.
Quote:
Another incident of you making nonsensical statements, why could Phoenix not bring the cards to the table? If your suggesting he dealt his own games for years he would specifically be bringing his own cards. I suggested several time the cards were bought by Phoenix and stored onsite. He could easily access them and stack the deck if he likes. Cutting would mix it up a little but he could use marked cards to indicate a specific point in the deck. I understand a waitress is still not fully impartial but cheating needs some evidence, if cheating is a sackable offence that's enough encouragement for the waitresses, they are far more easily replaced than Phoenix.
Firstly, if you are going to suggest that I need evidence to prove a waitress to cheat, then you need evidence to prove Phoenix would cheat.
Secondly, I must ask, have you played Poker before at all? Even if Phoenix somehow stacked the deck in his favor(which, judging from Phoenix's personality in the games, is unlikely), a simple shuffling of the deck beforehand would completely ruin that. No one ever brings a cold-cut deck to a game.
Any marked card would be noticed by any sort of experienced Poker player, and would be thrown out.
Cutting also does not "mix it up a little." It prevents cheating. Phoenix, assuming he stacked the deck for that hand, would lose everything he planned on getting when the cards were cut and the bottom half was placed on top of each other. Outside of some incredible odds, there is no way cheating could occur in a situation like that.
If you are seriously going to accuse me of nonsensical responses, I would suggest you do some research beforehand and perhaps play a little Poker while you're at it.
Quote:
You are assuming a man would automatically cheat to win poker. Zak is a proud man, his attempt to cheat to beat him wasn't about winning, it was about ruining his reputation and revenge. There's no reason he'd just cheat in any old game just because he was losing he doesn't have a great history of cheating that we're aware of. Though really I don't know why Zak as a extremely good card player would have that challenge, sounds like a great way to get a bad state-appointed-attorney.
...you essentially answered your own question.
Zak cheated against Phoenix why? To restore his reputation. If he was losing in another game, what might he do? Cheat. Why? To keep his own reputation from being tarnished in the first place.
Quote:
Fiction! Wonderful things can be done with it.
I really must thank you for making my own point for me. Watch this.
Quote:
Mannfred Von Karma can go 40 years without a loss,
Aaaannnnddd guess what Manfred was doing all those 40 years? You guessed it: Cheating! Making deals with witnesses, falsifying evidence, tazoring attorneys to get evidence, etc.
Quote:
disabled men can orchestrate death traps
Not exactly sure how this proves anything...
Quote:
legendary thiefs go around stealing in brightly coloured costumes
Or this...
Quote:
Empty Blue Badger costumes can jump up to the Judge's podium to prevent the gavel from landing and ending a case early.
Was in the movie, not the game, so not technically canon, but regardless, again, so what?
Besides, if you're going to say here that "it's fiction, anything can happen," then how in the world can you be so quick to dismiss my "she snuck in" theory? Your entire argument against that rests on whether people act realistically in a restaurant or not.
Quote:
Also PHOENIX HAS MAGICAL POWERS HELPING HIM OUT whenever he feels pressured. I'm not saying Phoenix has won every hand but he wins every game in the end. Again this is based on an assumption about the BBC owner so drop it.
That is EXACTLY THE POINT. He HAS "magical powers." The entire point here is that he HAS those magical powers, and he didn't just get his seven year streak because "lol it's fiction." The boss doesn't KNOW that though.
And this entire debate is BASED on assumptions. Whether or not the police could arrive in time. Whether or not prosecutors can access certain discussions. Whether or not Olga could sneak in. You can't pick and choose which assumptions you will dismiss and which you'll keep.
Quote:
Zak trusted Phoenix to adopt his daughter after he left without any prior instructions. Leaving your daughter in the hands of an almost complete stranger. That's pretty trusting.
As I recall, he didn't particularly care all that much about Trucy. He simply used her to escape, and didn't even plan where she would live next. He was far more concerned with his own getaway than Trucy's future.
Quote:
In all likelihood your are spewing waffle and conjecture. You've got no evidence what she said was a lie, the game gave no indication that it is a lie so you can hardly say 'Kristoph was right on the verge of revealing her' because you can't be sure she is. If anything she would have revealed that when she revealed her true nature but she didn't so you can drop this point.
And you have no evidence that what she said was the truth. Tell me, when someone lies to you six times in a row, how likely are you to believe their seventh statement?
Quote:
Implying that because she lied about a bunch of things perhaps she lied about everything. This is what I was talking about with you not accepting consequences, you just try and roll onto something else as if nothing was wrong.
What would you prefer I said? Tell you I think she lied again? You believe she was telling the truth, I don't. Neither of us have a way to prove whether she did or didn't, so the point's moot. Might as well move on to something else, unless you particularly enjoy rehashing the same things over and over again.
Quote:
There's no reason to say he couldn't have done that on the actual night when they played poker. Though he didn't call the police (at least not for the point of capturing Zak) so....what's your point? Phoenix has shown that he doesn't hold such a grudge as when Zak wants to improve the quality of life and future of Trucy so as to turn him in already. It's the same risk.
Oh, look. Assumptions. And I thought you hated those.
My argument isn't whether or not Phoenix would have called the police or not. It's whether Zak believed Phoenix might have(since he was paranoid of being found out). And Zak basically was watching Phoenix the entire night, so there was no way he could have.
Quote:
It would require some special attention for a prosecutor to sit in on a conversation....such as the attention Godot would give Dahlia Hawthorne. Godot's even shown he'd be willing to go above and beyond the law for revenge on Dahlia so there's no way to show he was doing something legal when he heard that information.
Yet again, my point isn't whether or not a prosecutor would have done this(as Klavier would likely not have). It's simply whether the possibility exists at all, and then whether or not Zak would be willing to chance that to show off his secret symbols or tell Phoenix something that could get him in trouble. That's all.
Quote:
That's an unusual but good point, if Von Karma couldn't submit something in taken in the detention center then you kind of defeat the original point that prosecutors could use any kind of recording taken there. Though did Von Karma have a picture or the camera footage?
I believe there is a difference as to whether or not prosecutors can submit things in court, and then use them in an investigation. Von Karma had a picture(so we don't know for sure whether she had footage or not), and she also knew quite a bit about the Kurain Channeling technique(which could have come from either video taping Phoenix/Mia's conversation or from talking to Morgan). We won't know for sure either way.
At any rate, a prosecutor could have simply sat in and listened instead of recording the conversation. Zak would be aware of that.
Quote:
Sorry if you can't keep up. I'm suggesting one waitress or two to vouch for her. Forged credentials everywhere else.
Let me make sure I've got this straight: Forged credentials as in fake restaurants she's worked in before?
Quote:
Yes but as you pointed out earlier, stuff taken in there only counts as 'hearsay' and can't be presented in court. Though to follow your logic defies your entire premise that 'it's mighty coincidental for the hiring to be at the right time' it might seem strange and make little sense but in AA world coincidences happen, live with it.
I'm willing to admit that coincidences do happen. However, the reason I believe all of this didn't happen is because so many coincidences had to have occurred at the same time. I'm not ruling it out as a possibility, but I don't believe that's what happened.
Quote:
Could probably make an argument that the broaches are one of a kind, Trucy could probably validate authenticity. Also how would Valant get Phoenix to sign away the rights to him? Even if he forged the letter Phoenix would know Zak wasn't legally dead yet. Besides Zak is willing to go in person to transfer rights so this is all a moot point.
Trucy would have been eight when she last saw whatever broach this was. I sincerely doubt that, seven years later, she could remember it well enough to spot a fake.
As for how Valant would do it, he would simply send a letter with a witness which would read exactly like the one Zak wrote for Trucy, but instead of giving rights to Trucy, they would give them to Valant. He would forge a letter from Zak to him.
At any rate, if you're willing to concede he would only have gone in person, then I will agree, as that was my point from the beginning.
Quote:
Implying that a letter sent to Phoenix could have a faked signature, but if Zak signed it beforehand why would it be fake?
Ah. I think I know where the confusion has come from.
Let's say, for example, Valant went to someone like Drew Misham with an example of Zak's signature. The forger then forged Zak's signature upon this fake "transferral document" and sent it to Phoenix.
To start I'll say I've lost confidence in your ability to debate, I realised why your arguments have no conviction to them, because they don't explain anything. You ain't trying to argue "Who really forged the bloody Ace" you don't have any idea or theory, your just nitpicking at mine by going into grey areas left by the game where it's difficult to get an absolute victor and when that fails you ignore common sense and canon to put forward your conjecture. You misread and misunderstand other people's statements to the point I have to say "No that's not what I'm saying" and never seem to acknowledge any problems. But hey what problems would there be to a guy who doesn't have any idea what he's arguing for and is simply looking for trouble. I looked at your first point last night before I went to sleep and I lost sleep over the stupidity of it and how infuriating it was so I might not argue further after this.
Quote:
Rather ironic, considering the entirety of your assumption that Olga is actually hired at the BBC is based on your characterization of the BBC owner. If he was the demeanor of the Berry Big Circus, he could easily be naive enough to miss something like that. He was apparently nice enough to either continue to let her work at the BBC(assuming she was hired beforehand) or actually hire her(had she not been) as shown in the credits of AJ, so now that we're questioning owner personalities, I don't think your earlier claims about this being difficult for Olga stand up very well.
Your arguments draw just as much from assumptions as mine
My assumption is based by the game telling us so and no one contradicting it or objecting to it. Ignored as I barely bring the BBC owner into this at all. Drop your BBC assumptions.
Quote:
Zak was willing to knowingly let Phoenix present forged evidence in court and have him lose his badge(as shown by the fact that he had the real diary page in 4-4). Zak was willing to let the man who stood up to defend him lose everything, I have no problems picturing him taking down a business of which he knew little to nothing about.
So you are suggesting Zak would allow collateral damage in his attempt to get revenge on Phoenix.....by getting revenge specifically on Phoenix by letting him lose his badge? I was always under the impression Zak didn't know about the diary page but your argument doesn't indicate Zak's willingness to step on other people to hurt Phoenix.
Quote:
All of the non obvious(and by non obvious I mean the first two paragraphs where it talks about stealing chips and looking at the other person's cards) methods listed(save one) in that link have to do with the dealer adjusting the deck before the game(e.g marking cards, cold cutting deck, etc.). Which ties in very nicely with my theory that Phoenix didn't bring the cards to the table, but that's another point.
Anyways, all of these methods are simply dealt with by cutting the cards, or burning a few cards before placing the cards down. If the game had a standard Poker procedure, such as, say, the non-dealer gets to decide how many cards to burn, or multiple deck cuts, it would be virtually impossible to cheat. That article really doesn't help your argument much.
Another incident of you making nonsensical statements, why could Phoenix not bring the cards to the table? If your suggesting he dealt his own games for years he would specifically be bringing his own cards. I suggested several time the cards were bought by Phoenix and stored onsite. He could easily access them and stack the deck if he likes. Cutting would mix it up a little but he could use marked cards to indicate a specific point in the deck. I understand a waitress is still not fully impartial but cheating needs some evidence, if cheating is a sackable offence that's enough encouragement for the waitresses, they are far more easily replaced than Phoenix.
Quote:
It's simple logic, really. All you have to do is take a look at Zak.
Zak was a man who valued winning over Poker more than literally just about anything else. What could he not do? Beat Phoenix. Couldn't he have just cheated and beaten him that way? No, he had to hire a professional card shark to make Phoenix lose(and even then he still couldn't do it). So if cheating is such an easy to do practice, why is it that Zak never did any of these tricks earlier? Particularly in the game between him and Phoenix in jail, when there was no other dealer in the first place?
You are assuming a man would automatically cheat to win poker. Zak is a proud man, his attempt to cheat to beat him wasn't about winning, it was about ruining his reputation and revenge. There's no reason he'd just cheat in any old game just because he was losing he doesn't have a great history of cheating that we're aware of. Though really I don't know why Zak as a extremely good card player would have that challenge, sounds like a great way to get a bad state-appointed-attorney.
Quote:
Now think about Phoenix, who's likely nowhere near the best player in the world, and going seven straight years without a loss. Unless the BBC is a complete idiot, he would have had to been suspecting something.
Let me drop a little revelation here...
Fiction! Wonderful things can be done with it. Mannfred Von Karma can go 40 years without a loss, disabled men can orchestrate death traps, legendary thiefs go around stealing in brightly coloured costumes, Empty Blue Badger costumes can jump up to the Judge's podium to prevent the gavel from landing and ending a case early.
Firstly Phoenix's career is probably nowhere near as intense as someone so in the spotlight in reality I doubt he's had as much work. Also reality-AA comparisons don't really work due to the fantastical nature of the series. Also PHOENIX HAS MAGICAL POWERS HELPING HIM OUT whenever he feels pressured. I'm not saying Phoenix has won every hand but he wins every game in the end. Again this is based on an assumption about the BBC owner so drop it.
Quote:
Post subject: Re: Who really forged the bloody Ace in Turnabout Trump? Reply with quote
Quote:
Right I'm going to have to stop you here. A lot of your points are based on the characterisation of the BBC owner. We know nothing of this character, whether he is a trusting man, a jovial man, a suspicious man, a woman!
Perhaps he shares the demeanour of the Berry Big Circus owner and naively trusts all his employees. We don't know. Since we don't I'd kindly ask you to stick to evidence and precedents and ignore this BBC's input since we know nothing of them and therefore shouldn't make assumptions.
Whoever was in charge that night clearly authorised Olga to deal otherwise Phoenix would say "That's not quite how we do things here" therefore it is assumed it is fine for waitresses to deal.
Rather ironic, considering the entirety of your assumption that Olga is actually hired at the BBC is based on your characterization of the BBC owner. If he was the demeanor of the Berry Big Circus, he could easily be naive enough to miss something like that. He was apparently nice enough to either continue to let her work at the BBC(assuming she was hired beforehand) or actually hire her(had she not been) as shown in the credits of AJ, so now that we're questioning owner personalities, I don't think your earlier claims about this being difficult for Olga stand up very well.
Your arguments draw just as much from assumptions as mine do.
Quote:
Opportunistic drivel, Zak could have done that but his issue was with Phoenix not the BBC, Zak may be a vengeful man at Poker but I doubt he'd bring a business to his knees when he was a chance to specifically show up the one man. Plus Olga might have objected to the plan getting her so deeply involved as to be accused.
Zak was willing to knowingly let Phoenix present forged evidence in court and have him lose his badge(as shown by the fact that he had the real diary page in 4-4). Zak was willing to let the man who stood up to defend him lose everything, I have no problems picturing him taking down a business of which he knew little to nothing about.
Quote:
Sorry to drop a wiki link but a lot of the methods here can easily be controlled by the dealer, ESPECIALLY if the dealer has access to the deck beforehand. Like someone like Phoenix would if he was sole dealer. Also Magic card tricks are all about redirecting your attention so I don't know how you can have such a grasp of the field to say it's impossible when misdirection and sleight of hand are it's specialty
All of the non obvious(and by non obvious I mean the first two paragraphs where it talks about stealing chips and looking at the other person's cards) methods listed(save one) in that link have to do with the dealer adjusting the deck before the game(e.g marking cards, cold cutting deck, etc.). Which ties in very nicely with my theory that Phoenix didn't bring the cards to the table, but that's another point.
Anyways, all of these methods are simply dealt with by cutting the cards, or burning a few cards before placing the cards down. If the game had a standard Poker procedure, such as, say, the non-dealer gets to decide how many cards to burn, or multiple deck cuts, it would be virtually impossible to cheat. That article really doesn't help your argument much.
Quote:
Also Magic card tricks are all about redirecting your attention so I don't know how you can have such a grasp of the field to say it's impossible when misdirection and sleight of hand are it's specialty
It's simple logic, really. All you have to do is take a look at Zak.
Zak was a man who valued winning over Poker more than literally just about anything else. What could he not do? Beat Phoenix. Couldn't he have just cheated and beaten him that way? No, he had to hire a professional card shark to make Phoenix lose(and even then he still couldn't do it). So if cheating is such an easy to do practice, why is it that Zak never did any of these tricks earlier? Particularly in the game between him and Phoenix in jail, when there was no other dealer in the first place?
Quote:
Aside from my previous point asking you to stop assuming things about the BBC owner since you paint them rather suspicious, Phoenix could simply have said he's extremely good at playing poker.
...
Let me throw out a name here. Greg Merson is the current best Poker player in the world. He's the current champion of the World Series of Poker. He was also recently recruited to go on some Poker show where young players who wanted a shot at him could have one in a game of one on one. Guess what? He lost a couple of those games. The best Poker player in the world...lost. He couldn't even go a year undefeated.
Now think about Phoenix, who's likely nowhere near the best player in the world, and going seven straight years without a loss. Unless the BBC is a complete idiot, he would have had to been suspecting something.
Quote:
Sure if any of them knew who Zak was, remember I suggested Olga did the bribing since it was her who wanted the job. Zak got his money from the poker tournaments he went around playing during his exile.
Now I'm the one who has to ask you to stop making assumptions about people.
You assume here that Zak trusts Olga enough to go out and get herself bribed into a job with his money. I personally can find no record of Zak's personality being anywhere near that trustworthy, especially considering her reaction to her after their trap failed. If you can, by all means, provide it.
Zak trusted Phoenix to adopt his daughter after he left without any prior instructions. Leaving your daughter in the hands of an almost complete stranger. That's pretty trusting.
Quote:
Dare I say it's never opposed nor overturned because Phoenix never let it be?
Recall that Kristoph was breaking down Olga right before Phoenix stepped in. In all likelihood, Kristoph would have exposed her as a complete fake had Phoenix not done so. Of course, Phoenix needed as little suspicion on her at the time to being his counterattack against Kristoph, so that's not really all that non-understandable.
In all likelihood your are spewing waffle and conjecture. You've got no evidence what she said was a lie, the game gave no indication that it is a lie so you can hardly say 'Kristoph was right on the verge of revealing her' because you can't be sure she is. If anything she would have revealed that when she revealed her true nature but she didn't so you can drop this point.
Quote:
Besides, whether or not her testimony gives more credibility to one side or the other isn't the point here.
OH CONTRAIRE
Quote:
...really? The words of someone who already lied about who actually hit who with a bottle, who was winning the card game, the cards that were in the deck, the plan to trap Phoenix, and what happened to her count as evidence in any way, shape, or form?
The point that started my argument was you directly bringing up her credibility. Implying that because she lied about a bunch of things perhaps she lied about everything. This is what I was talking about with you not accepting consequences, you just try and roll onto something else as if nothing was wrong.
Quote:
Sure there is. What if Phoenix called the police, and they began searching the area for him? That would cause quite a bit of concern.
There's no reason to say he couldn't have done that on the actual night when they played poker. Though he didn't call the police (at least not for the point of capturing Zak) so....what's your point? Phoenix has shown that he doesn't hold such a grudge as when Zak wants to improve the quality of life and future of Trucy so as to turn him in already. It's the same risk.
Quote:
Godot had the ability to sit in on a private conversation between Morgan Fey and Dahlia Hawthorne. Even if you're going to suggest that somehow, video footage would be off limits while real time conversations would not be, any prosecutor/police officer could have simply sat in and listened to their conversation during the game.
It would require some special attention for a prosecutor to sit in on a conversation....such as the attention Godot would give Dahlia Hawthorne. Godot's even shown he'd be willing to go above and beyond the law for revenge on Dahlia so there's no way to show he was doing something legal when he heard that information.
Quote:
Simply put, private statements not made while under oath only qualify as "hearsay," regardless of whether you have video footage or not. 2-2 is an excellent example of this: Von Karma had a picture taken of Phoenix and Mia discussing things in jail, but was not allowed to submit it as evidence.
That's an unusual but good point, if Von Karma couldn't submit something in taken in the detention center then you kind of defeat the original point that prosecutors could use any kind of recording taken there. Though did Von Karma have a picture or the camera footage?
Quote:
So there would just happen to be bribed waitresses who would vouch for her as well? How many people are you suggesting are in on this conspiracy again?
Sorry if you can't keep up. I'm suggesting one waitress or two to vouch for her. Forged credentials everywhere else.
Quote:
It would also make sense if the court actually made sure the attorneys were who they claimed to be before the case. Sadly, they don't. Very little makes sense in the AA world.
As for the camera, it really doesn't matter whether it was live or not, as I pointed out earlier.
Yes but as you pointed out earlier, stuff taken in there only counts as 'hearsay' and can't be presented in court. Though to follow your logic defies your entire premise that 'it's mighty coincidental for the hiring to be at the right time' it might seem strange and make little sense but in AA world coincidences happen, live with it.
Quote:
Again, what would there be to stop someone, like, say, Valant, from using those symbols, forging a letter, and getting the rights transferred to him? That argument's pretty weak, especially considering how well Valant and many others would have known Zak's outfit.
Could probably make an argument that the broaches are one of a kind, Trucy could probably validate authenticity. Also how would Valant get Phoenix to sign away the rights to him? Even if he forged the letter Phoenix would know Zak wasn't legally dead yet. Besides Zak is willing to go in person to transfer rights so this is all a moot point.
Quote:
Not sure I follow. Elaborate
Certainly you said:
Quote:
Zak would still have to be present, or else you would leave yourself open to the barrage of transferral fraud that would occur when letters with faked signatures were sent to lawyers and then signed.
Implying that a letter sent to Phoenix could have a faked signature, but if Zak signed it beforehand why would it be fake?
Quote:
Olga must have been hired, because the boss wouldn't be dumb enough to miss something like a fake waitress.
But the boss would be dumb enough to let someone he's barely even met deal cards for his prized poker player.
Additionally, the boss is also dumb enough to not suspect Phoenix of cheating.
The boss is also a bribable man and doesn't thoroughly check references.
The boss also happened to be hiring waitresses at just the right time as well.
Olga could then deal cards which were from the BBC, which then Zak would go along with. Phoenix could then describe these cards over the phone if need be(because somehow he would know exactly how to describe them to Trucy).
Olga would then be willing to lie about nearly everything else except the fact that she was legitimately hired at the BBC.
Going back to the earlier point about assumptions...it kinda seems like there's a whole lotta assumptions being made in this argument right here. A whole lot of assumptions...where if one of these assumptions is wrong, the entire argument falls apart.
Quote:
Right to counter something about assumptions...
Olga must have been hired, because the game tells us so and no contradicts it even when Olga is squealing all the surprises.
Again, the game also tells us that Phoenix forged the ace with no objections, which is exactly what you're arguing against.
Quote:
The boss DOES let someone he's arguably barely met to deal cards in canon.
Whoops, assumption time. You are assuming he's met Olga in the first place.
Quote:
There is no indicattion the boss suspects Phoenix of cheating it is YOUR assumption he does. You also assume Phoenix never had to prove his poker skill to the boss.
There is a difference between proving your skill to someone, and going seven straight years undefeated. I'm not arguing that Phoenix couldn't beat the boss at a game of Poker. Going seven straight years undefeated against some top black market Poker players, without some help...is another thing entirely.
Quote:
I never suggested the boss was bribed, in fact I went out of my way to say they wouldn't approach him. As for checking referenes they were faked/Zak could pose as one. At this point we are getting into grey areas were assumptions are necessary as there is no evidence...oh apart from the next point...
The boss happened to be hiring waitresses at the right time...because Olga DID get hired, see point one where no one contradicts it, therefore canon she did get hired a couple days before meaning references or whatever were checked out or not required or in any case she was hired legitly.
Hey, remember when you accused me of ignoring your arguments and moving along with assumptions? Yeah, apply that to the above.
Quote:
Phoenix could easily describe the card to Trucy because the Ace of spades had a distinctive volume number on them and the card she forged and gave to Apollo was actually accepted as THE card showing it was a convincing match in canon.
Let me put this as simply as possible: Simply stating the volume number does NOT convey which kind of card it is. Also, whether or not the card she gave Apollo is convincing or not is a pointless argument to bring up as we haven't even established who forged the card yet.
Quote:
You said "Olga was willing to lie about everything except from the fact she was legitimately hired by the BBC" you are implying that that last part is a lie so it's your own bias assumption being used here.
Then take my "biased assumption" out of it. You really think she would lie about everything besides that?
Quote:
Phoenix could easily mention the card over the phone to Trucy the police may be fast and arrive at the door mid-call but they still need Phoenix to let them in. Instructions are simple and specific and if further information was needed it could be provided at the detention center since you indicate that stuff there cannot be used in evidence.
There is a new point I should bring up here...and I can't believe I haven't mentioned it yet, but...
Believe it or not, cell phone calls are retrievable for the sake of an investigation. Assuming an officer has a warrant(which they would if Phoenix was arrested, which he was), they would be able to go back through his calls and find out what he said to Trucy.
I can't picture Phoenix being the kind to make that kind of a mistake.
"I can't go to hell, little weirdo. I'm all out of vacation days."